Show Off Your Antique Electric Hand Drill

[AntiqueBen]

Old electric hand drills from the '20's & '30's have always captured my attention. It was the golden age & beginning of portable electric hand drill manufacturing. The good old days of only one direction, motor brushes & brass badges. Black & Decker was the first to do it in 1917. I'm always fascinated by these huge, heavy drills with low rpm & tons of torque. Sometimes even dangerous since most of them from this era were not grounded. Just when I think I've seen the weirdest drill ever made, along comes something even more odd & unique. Since the electric drill design hadn't been perfected yet in the early years, manufacturers were coming up with some real doozies. Some of these old drills can be fun restoration projects too.

I'd like to see this thread be where you can post up your pics of these old beauties so we can see what's out there.

I recently finally found a 1917 B & D electric drill. I haven't received it yet, but when it shows up I'll post some pics. Here's my old Thor U44. This thing is a beast & weighs a ton. Like a lot of others, if your bit bites, you better let go

 

[Ricky Joe]

I’ve gone through a lot of them through the years, mixing mortar and cement. You can buy them cheap and no loss when they finally go, usually with a nice light show to say farewell. I’ve got two of them now, both on their way out. One has lost the forward speed so only works in one direction. That one is Black and Decker. The other is a Craftsman. I’ve had many different drills in addition: Stanley, Wen, Victor; can’t remember them all.

 

[The Cobbler]

I posted many years ago on one , thread here https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/vintage-black-decker-1-4-drill.280277/

 

[Mike'smeatshop]

We as tool guys know it is not surprising that this drill still works like the day it was brought home back n the late 60s.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Nice drill. It's cool to see the box. Those usually never survive.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I've been doing some research on Black & Decker's first drill from 1917. I recently bought, what I thought to be, a first model 1917 example. It has a 2nd patent # on it, so it's probably from their 1921 patent. When I've read or looked up pictures in the past, this style drill is what was considered the first. Then, I saw the actual drawing of the drill on the original patent and it's not this model at all. The first model was a completely different design. Pics attached. More to the story on the next post.

 

[AntiqueBen]

So I started looking for the B & D drills identical to the patent drawing, and I lucked out. I came across a guy that actually had two of them. The price was right so I jumped on it & bought both. They both have only the one patent date of November 6, 1917. One is called a "Special" model and it has a slightly different design. The body of the drill pushes the chuck out further compared to the other one.

I saw John Fix's video on YouTube where he restored a model like the one in my previous post. He says it's an original from 1917, but it's not like the model we see in the original patent. So, did B & D make that model after 1917 but before their next patent in 1921? Technically speaking, the first model would be what we see in the original patent. Below are pics of the two originals I found.

Any information on this matter will help. If anyone will know, you guys will

 

[AntiqueBen]

While researching I found an an article from 1916 (before the patent) explaining B & D's first drill. The article showed a pic of the drill, which matched the patent pic. B & D actually submitted the patent in 1914 & it was granted on 11-6-17.

 

[AntiqueBen]

One of these 1917 B & D drills has an odd patent date on the chuck. It appears to be 8-17-12. It doesn't show up on datamp. All patents after 1849 I think we're issued on a Tuesday. I looked at a 1912 calendar & that Tuesday in August was the 13th. The date on the chuck doesn't look like a 13. Even so, no patents on 8-13-12 has anything to do with a chuck. With all of this said, did B & D use imported chucks? I haven't received this drill yet, so I can't see what the rest of the chuck says, but the patent date seems to not be from the US.
Any thoughts??

 

[RTM]

The odds of wrong patent dates being stamped are not zero. That may be the day they applied, wrong year, so many options.

Did you try a TYPE search on datamp?

Just Google the date and drill chuck, see if someone has posted a correction? Add black decker if to many returns. May need quotes around the date, and maybe spell the month, instead of just number.

What other wording on the chuck?

 

[AntiqueBen]

I know it's an Almond chuck. I finally found an Almond chuck patent for September 17, 1912. So, I guess they incorrectly stamped the 8 (for August) instead of the 9 (for September). Are errors like this common?
See the Almond patent HERE

 

[RTM]

I finally found an Almond chuck patent for September 17, 1912. So, I guess they incorrectly stamped the 8 (for August) instead of the 9 (for September). Are errors like this common?

I think I've seen 6 in the 4 ish years I've been on GJ, plus more in the prior 20ish years.

 

[Mintgrun]

I've enjoyed your Jacobs chuck thread, Ben and intend to share the drills I posted over there in this one. Ironically, I'm now going to share my Almond chuck in your drill thread. I was up in the shop the other day, looking through my old chucks and came across this Almond example, but dismissed it because it wouldn't fit into the Jacobs thread; but after looking at the patent you posted above I see that it fits into this one.


It's marked in two places, once in tiny print around the upper rim and again down between the chuck key holes. The rim reads, ALMOND PATD FEB 8 '76 T.R. ALMOND MFR 83 WASHINGTON ST. BROOKLYN, N.Y. and THE ALMOND CO. BROOKLYN, N.Y. USA below.



Here is the 1876 patent granted to Thomas R. Almond

US Patent: 173,152 - Improvement in Drill-Chucks

US patent 173,152 Improvement in Drill-Chucks was issued to Thomas R. Almond of Fitchburg, MA. It was granted on 02/08/1876.

www.datamp.org

There is an interesting writeup on Vintage Machinery about Almond and Jacobs here,

T. R. Almond - History | VintageMachinery.org

in which they say this chuck was introduced in 1905 and they moved the factory to Ashburnham, Mass. in 1907. Based on the Brooklyn location stamped on this chuck, I'm guessing it was made between 1905-07.

Tom

 

[AntiqueBen]

I've enjoyed your Jacobs chuck thread, Ben and intend to share the drills I posted over there in this one. Ironically, I'm now going to share my Almond chuck in your drill thread. I was up in the shop the other day, looking through my old chucks and came across this Almond example, but dismissed it because it wouldn't fit into the Jacobs thread; but after looking at the patent you posted above I see that it fits into this one.


It's marked in two places, once in tiny print around the upper rim and again down between the chuck key holes. The rim reads, ALMOND PATD FEB 8 '76 T.R. ALMOND MFR 83 WASHINGTON ST. BROOKLYN, N.Y. and THE ALMOND CO. BROOKLYN, N.Y. USA below.



Here is the 1876 patent granted to Thomas R. Almond

US Patent: 173,152 - Improvement in Drill-Chucks

US patent 173,152 Improvement in Drill-Chucks was issued to Thomas R. Almond of Fitchburg, MA. It was granted on 02/08/1876.

www.datamp.org

There is an interesting writeup on Vintage Machinery about Almond and Jacobs here,

T. R. Almond - History | VintageMachinery.org

in which they say this chuck was introduced in 1905 and they moved the factory to Ashburnham, Mass. in 1907. Based on the Brooklyn location stamped on this chuck, I'm guessing it was made between 1905-07.

Tom

Nice old chuck Tom. Looks to be in great shape. I wander who B & D used for their OEM chucks? Looks like they used Almond & Jacobs. I suppose B & D could only use that particular Almond chuck until the court decision prevented it. It is an interesting read about the battle between Almond & Jacobs. Jacobs took his design to Almond & they told him they weren't interested. When Jacobs started manufacturing his own, Almond made an exact replica & started selling it. Jacobs sued & won, but I don't understand why the judge still let Almond sell their "knock off" in the Eastern District of New York? Almond had their chance, but envy & greed got the best of them. The Jacobs name stuck & Almond was done by the '40's I think. Since the beginning of time, envy, greed, money & power finds its way into everything. Even early tool manufacturing.

 

[four.cycle]

The odds of wrong patent dates being stamped are not zero.

@AntiqueBen -

I have on many occasions seen incorrect patent dates and/or numbers stamped on objects.

If you have a copy of my LIST you will find the word "erroneously" in a few places - all of which pertain to incorrect patent information stamped on some object.
It is unfortunately far more common than some of us would like, and it can be absolutely maddening.

If and when you DO get that sorted out and documented, make sure the information gets to one of the stewards at datamp.org.

 

[AntiqueBen]

@AntiqueBen -

I have on many occasions seen incorrect patent dates and/or numbers stamped on objects.

If you have a copy of my LIST you will find the word "erroneously" in a few places - all of which pertain to incorrect patent information stamped on some object.
It is unfortunately far more common than some of us would like, and it can be absolutely maddening.

If and when you DO get that sorted out and documented, make sure the information gets to one of the stewards at datamp.org.

Will do fourcycle. I found an article in Iron Age dated March of 1910 stating the lawsuit between Jacobs & Almond was over. If that's the case, and Almond could no longer sell their Jacobs knock-off, then how does my 1917 B & D drills have a Almond chuck? I think, according to the info, Almond could still sell this chuck in New York, but I can't see B & D using an Almond chuck on their drill due to the lawsuit ruling.

 

[four.cycle]

^ I cannot answer that question. Jeff Joslin at datamp.org is the one who sent the response above. Jeff is the steward at datamp.org for all things chuck, if I am not mistaken. He would most likely be more able to address that question.

The nuances of patent law are a can of worms I've tried to steer clear of. I have enough on my plate just working on the list - I still have thousands of images of objects in folders to identify, ascertain maker and possibly patent number, and hopefully find supporting documentation for - just that is more than enough of a task.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Sound like you have much work a head of you . Good luck. I appreciate your insight here. I'll check in with datamp & see what I can learn from them.

 

[four.cycle]

^ It is more than enough, yes. Hopefully at some point some ambitious genius who is more "tech savvy" can take it and DO something with it - Jeff suggested building a database with it, but that's far beyond my pay grade.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I build & create websites so if you would ever want to figure out how to properly put all your info on a website, just let me know. I might be able to help you out.

 

[four.cycle]

^ well... it IS on a website ... GarageJournal.com ... as with the "vise" spreadsheet, it's in a constant state of flux... (3 or 4 additions already today I think... ) the "edit" limitations here preclude my ability to keep it updated ON a web PAGE, so the only way to get a current, up-to-date version is to download the *.txt file - which seems to work okay - at least I haven't heard any complaints about it.

still working on sorting out the other material and getting it all into folders and such - that is another project in itself - hopefully another tool which can be used by the group.

 

[AntiqueBen]

You could have a website with just a simple home page that would always have the most "up to date" PDF file of your list. You could also add a background story & explanation of what your doing. Then it would be available to the whole web. You could simply give your link when referring people to your information. This way your not limited to GJ's platform capabilities & you could tweek your info as you see fit. You can also promote GJ by giving links on your site that would refer people back to GJ threads. It would be a cool way to promote GJ too if you wanted. I think it would be a cool website & a help to many looking for this type of information. It would be extremely easy to do. If you want help accomplishing this, just let me know.

 

[four.cycle]

^ That is all way more work than I want to do. If you ever looked at the original version of the list, the initial intention was to provide something in the way of a "cross reference". Everybody knows Snap-on makes Snap-on, but who makes .... Sparta? or Action? (or any number of other obscure brand names?)
In its current form, it's pretty evident that it grew a life of its own, but the intention was never to build a full-blown, comprehensive database that included every detail on every manufacturer - this was just supposed to be the jump-off point.
The simpler I make my task, the easier it is, and the more of it gets accomplished. My concern about trying to make it more is that it would most likely get me mired down in little rabbit holes from which I benefit little. I will leave those rabbit holes for others - I'm just going to show them the path to get there.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I've been considering creating a vintage tool website of some kind for a while now. If I ever pull the trigger & start one, I'll let you know. Maybe I could reference your list there

 

[AntiqueBen]

My 1917 Black & Decker drills showed up this afternoon. I knew these were big drills, but these things are absolute monsters! I can't wait to start restoring these.

 

[rustyzman]

I have a first or early generation Black and Decker Vibrocentric valve seat grinder set of that variety. Best guess I found on mine was late 20's to early 30's. Still works great, just used it in rebuilding my old dodge engine over the summer.

The only warning I have on those old B&D drills is the on/off switch. Mine is an on/on, so you have to click it on and click it again off. On a valve seat grinder, not a big deal. If your drill has that, it could break your arm if you are not careful and it binds. Maybe an inline momentary deadman foot switch would be wise if you ever plan to use it.

The internal wiring on mine was like new, even though the external cord had gone back to nature.

I have/had a couple huge Chicago Pneumatic air drills that are a twist on/twist off control and the same issue is there. That torque output is stronger than me...

The Seat Grinder...

 

[Mike'smeatshop]

I have a first or early generation Black and Decker Vibrocentric valve seat grinder set of that variety. Best guess I found on mine was late 20's to early 30's. Still works great, just used it in rebuilding my old dodge engine over the summer.

The only warning I have on those old B&D drills is the on/off switch. Mine is an on/on, so you have to click it on and click it again off. On a valve seat grinder, not a big deal. If your drill has that, it could break your arm if you are not careful and it binds. Maybe an inline momentary deadman foot switch would be wise if you ever plan to use it.

The internal wiring on mine was like new, even though the external cord had gone back to nature.

I have/had a couple huge Chicago Pneumatic air drills that are a twist on/twist off control and the same issue is there. That torque output is stronger than me...

The Seat Grinder...

That is so cool. I hooked up an Amishman that restores those old Maytag electric motors with this stuff. Try to avoid moisture from air tanks. He likes it. That is a gem. Thanks for sharing.

 

[rustyzman]

Thanks!
That seat grinder did a fine job too. The rebuild is pulling a clean, steady 19+" of vacuum at idle now. Everything else that was done helped too, of course, but vacuum is a great indicator of valve condition.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Thanks!
That seat grinder did a fine job too. The rebuild is pulling a clean, steady 19+" of vacuum at idle now. Everything else that was done helped too, of course, but vacuum is a great indicator of valve condition.

That's a piece of B & D history. Nice original box. The last patent number looks to be from 1930. A link to the patent is HERE

 

[four.cycle]

we're interrupting this program for a little commercial advertising break:

Gilfillan Bros electric drill ad Motor Age Jan. 1921


1919 Hardware Age Black & Decker ad pp

1928 Saturday Evening Post Black & Decker ad pp 160

stay tuned to this thread - same time, same place

 

[AntiqueBen]

we're interrupting this program for a little commercial advertising break:

Gilfillan Bros electric drill ad Motor Age Jan. 1921


1919 Hardware Age Black & Decker ad pp

1928 Saturday Evening Post Black & Decker ad pp 160

stay tuned to this thread - same time, same place

Awesome ads fourcycle! Look at the drill design in the 1919 B & D ad. Did the drill design that B & D had in their patent drawing only get produced in those first couple of years? I wander when they switched from the patent design drill to the one we see in the 1919 ad? Or were they produced side by side. I'm having trouble finding this info, if it's even out there on the inter-webs

 

[rustyzman]

That's a piece of B & D history. Nice original box. The last patent number looks to be from 1930. A link to the patent is HERE

Nice! I can't get the link to the patent to connect, but having that 1930 date is fantastic. I appreciate that very much.
I need to make a new leather handle and glue a couple finger joints again, but overall the unit is great.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Nice! I can't get the link to the patent to connect, but having that 1930 date is fantastic. I appreciate that very much.
I need to make a new leather handle and glue a couple finger joints again, but overall the unit is great.

That link isn't working for some reason. The pics below are the specifics & date of the last patent on your tool.

 

[AntiqueBen]

At closer inspection of these two 1917 patented B & D drills, I noticed what could be a clue on the badges. Each have a separate badge indicating the cities where they have branches for service. The 5/8" drill list 15 cities, where the 1/2" Special drill only lists 10 cities. Most of the badges I've seen online lists 15 cities. I believe the drill on the original patent was a 1/2" drill. I'm guessing my 1/2" drill could possibly be the earliest version since it lists fewer cities for service. It also has the state abbreviation after each city where the 15 city badge doesn't. I think this could be some type of indicator of age, but finding this info I'm sure will prove difficult.

 

[rustyzman]

That link isn't working for some reason. The pics below are the specifics & date of the last patent on your tool.

Thank you for that. Very cool stuff.

 

[four.cycle]

1929 Popular Science Monthly Black & Decker ad pp 87

1930 Automobile Topics magazine Black & Decker ad pp 1198

1937 Automobile Digest Black & Decker ad Jul 1937 pp 47

1937 Automobile Digest Black & Decker ad Sep 1937 pp 47

 

[AntiqueBen]

1929 Popular Science Monthly Black & Decker ad pp 87

1930 Automobile Topics magazine Black & Decker ad pp 1198

1937 Automobile Digest Black & Decker ad Jul 1937 pp 47

1937 Automobile Digest Black & Decker ad Sep 1937 pp 47

Love all the old ads fourcycle. The Golden Age of power tool advertising. Here's a pic of my B & D trio. This gives some perspective on how small the 1/4" drill is compared to its bigger 1/2" & 5/8" brothers.

 

[four.cycle]

^ I'm not sure I could even lift one of those monstrosities, let alone drill holes with it!
My little Makita cordless is more than enough weight for me, thank you!


1938 Automobile Digest Black & Decker ad pp 43

1943 Aviation Black & Decker ad pp

1945 Saturday Evening Post Black & Decker ad pp

1948 Saturday Evening Post Black & Decker ad pp

 

[rustyzman]

That 5/8 is an absolute monster. Fantastic.

 

[AntiqueBen]

After looking at some pics online of other Special 1/2" 1917 B & D drills, I've noticed some differences. Below are pics of some differences compared to mine. The biggest differences are screws in the pistol grip handle with a vertical line below the bottom screw & the power cord coming out of the bottom of the handle. Mine has no screws in the handle (and no vertical line) & the power cord comes from behind the housing just above the handle, which matches the patent drawing. The drill with these differences has a badge dated November 6, 1917 like mine. So, apparently these changes came after 1917 & before the next patent in the early 20's. I'm guessing these changes could help identify earlier 1917 models compared to later ones. I wouldn't think they would make the drill two different ways at the same time. Any thoughts??